Mariusz Buchna v. Bank of America Na

MEMORANDUM

Mariusz and Julita Buchna appeal the district court’s dismissal of their action against Bank of America, N.A., Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems Inc. (MERS), and Bank of New York Mellon Corporation. Because the parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this case, we need not recount it here. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The Buchnas argue that the note and deed of trust were split, rendering the non-judicial foreclosure provisions in the deed of trust unenforceable. That argument fails to state a claim because it is based on nothing more than conclusory speculation that the parties exercising power under the deed of trust are not the note holder or agents of the note holder. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8; Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 , 127 S.Ct. 1955 , 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007); Cervantes v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 656 F.3d 1034, 1044 (9th Cir.2011). The Buchnas do not dispute that they are in default under the deed of trust and have alleged no reason to dispute the trustee’s right to foreclose. See Hogan v. Wash. Mut. Bank, N.A., 277 P.3d 781, 784 (Ariz.2012) (en banc). The Buchnas’ argument that…